The Portland daily press., 1887-03-11

The following decisions and rescrlpts were re-
celved yesterday in cases pending before the law
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
Horace +. Farnham VS.. Horace +. Davis and
dwelling house,
for the house under the contract with the de-
PENDANT (the owner) were paid for by him, and
hence there Is no valid claim for them against the
The other materials sued for were furnished
for the house under contract with another per-
the attachment The lien for these other mater
ials had thus expired by lapse of time. The evil
dence does not show an original promise by the
defendant to pay for these materials sold to the
Judgment for defendant.
KNOX COUNTY.
Luther Hemenway VS.. Geo. A. Lynde et ais
Rescript, bu Emery y.-Both parties derive title
from Joseph Holman, deceased He held the land
IA mortgage. The demandant claims I'M
der the heirs. The tenant claims under the adj
ministrator By statute lands held In mortgage
descend TO the administrator, and not to the heirs
5ltis under the administrator is the better title.
Ellen Thompson, llblt., VS.. Henry Thompson.
fescr,pt ~ Da'yorth, y: 1.-The declarations
OF Pinkham who assumed to act as agent for IL
belize in negotiating for return of the wife to her
husband after she had left him as she claims on
account OF MS cruelty toward her, are objected to-
Whether these alleged acts OF cruelty had been
condoned by the return was material question;
upon TINS question some at least Of these declara-
lions were admissible as showing the induce
ments held out for and the conditions of the re-
turn. Inc OIleI declarations DO not apBear from
the exceptions TO have been material.
2-The cross-examlaton of the libellee as to
acts Of alleged cruelty not set out in the libel or
bill OF particulars was admissible to show his
feeling and disposition as bearing upon his credi-
bty and tending to show the probability of such
$50 far as the cross-examination related to
collateral matters 1t was within the discretion of
me presiding justice and not subject to excep-
tons: Ford VS.. Ford 104 Mass 198.
The refusal to provide suitable medicine
when needed was admissible not only for the
In the libel.
4.-The proof that it was improbable that the
pears, came from the defendant upon cross exam
tnaton. TWAS therefore matter of discretion.
Besides II does not appear to have had any infu
Tor that purpose, Besides 1t might properly be
used as throwing light upon the previous testimo-
ny given by the witness. The motion for a new
trial cannot be maintained. Not upon the facts
for the law court cannot in this respect revise the
henderson "a Me- sSo Haskell vs. SI aapvey "a
NE ne, iy2 Sparnawk vs.; Sparhawk, 100 Mass.
Ssz. Nor upon the law for that must come before
before the court npon exceptions the facts having
100 Mass. $50; Maglathlin u.s. Magathn, isS
Mass. 299 There is in this case report Of the
testimony but no report of the facts as formed by
the presiding justice. nor of the testimony upon
which he relied for mis- conclusions.
Exceptions and motion overrued.
PEHoBsCoT COUNTY.
George w. Brown vs.. Inhabitants of winter
port.
Rescrtpt by Emery, }. The majority of. the
Court think the evidence preponderates in favor
OF the following propositions OF fact
THE money Of the plaintiffs assignor was
fessedly in behalf of the town and a paper pur-
porting to be a townnote was given therefor.
rms money SO borrowed was actually used
IN the payment OF proper municipal debts repre-
eented by town orders, which were thereupon
cancelled. The town thus had the benefit of the
money:
3-fhe town at legal meeting ratified this bor
rowing ana instructor Is treasurer to paw the
Town y,il order, wbisn had been given plaintiffs
asssignor " Dslc up the note first given
me cpirt is also satisfied Of the correctness of
>~lps soliowing propositions of law:
inform the inhabitants of the precise matter TO be
submitted TO them at the town meeting. The
town order now sued upon was specifically named
In the articles. That was sufficient.
1-Ine putting the question to vote on the out
SIDE Of the building being done by unanimous
No objection was made. No one was deprived OF
any kasssss- -kQ Speak vote. No injustice was
3--Tbe attempted RECESSION at a subsequent
town meeting Of the vote Of ratification was in
ned. The town could not undo the ratification
without undoing the act.
The result Is the town must repay with interest
the borrowed money, which it has made use of
Judgment for the plaiutiff for se1s1s with in
demand.
OXFORD COUNTY
George II. Bennett VS.. Roxanna Bennett
RescTfpt By Emery, 1.-THE instrument declared
on was primarily an agreement for plaintiffs as
signer to have the use of defendants farm. 1t
was only secondariiy an agreement to pay money
and then only as damages for breach of the
primary agreement There was no evidence that
plaintiffs assignor had been in any way deprived
OF the use Of the farm and consequently no EVIL
dence OF any cause of action on the agreement.
The nonsuit was properly ordered
Exceptions oyerruled.
Samuel +. Gibson VS.. Roxanna Bennett.
Rescrtpt by Emery, j. The tenants testimony
her by fIer husband before marriage and in con-
sideration Of marriage, and that she was Ignorant
OF his Indebtedness and of any design of his to de-
lay his creditors. Marriage is good and valu-
able consideration for conveyance of land The
grahtee under such a conveyance is net affected
by any fraudulent intents of the grantor Of which
she was ignorant levying creditor Of the hus-
band must In such case show the grantees notice
~. dne Jury believe the tenant We think they were
the best Judges Of the facts in this case.